Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
One of the best conversations of the week here at Ricochet has been over on the Member feed ("On The Developing Manvolution") where we're discussing how the fate of men is related to the culture in general.
It reminded me of this abstract of a study highlighted by Charles Murray over at AEI. The study is about how "benevolent sexism" (aka gentlemanly behavior) makes both sexes happy. Because it's a sociological study being written in the alt-universe known as academia, the authors of the study end by saying it must be stopped. Really:
Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality. But despite its negative consequences, benevolent sexism is a prevalent ideology that some even find attractive. To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair. A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse systemjustification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men. Additionally,benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men through diffuse system justification. In contrast, hostile sexism was not related to diffuse system justification or life satisfaction. The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.
I love it. Murray asks:
When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy? Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?
Crazy talk! But what I want to know is what "interventions" the study's authors support. Some type of regulation on etiquette?
Photo of gentleman via Shutterstock.
- Comment (91)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
I guess I'm doomed to a program of insensitivity training.
Jun '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
As the great Dennis Prager likes to say, scientific studies either confirm what common sense tells us, or they're wrong. This one appeared to confirm common sense in its findings before arriving at a most nonsensical conclusion.
As for your question of what interventions the study's authors support, I think we're safe in assuming that it's the only kind of intervention the Left knows: a heavy dollop of "diversity and sensitivity" training with a generous dusting of government coercion on top.
Mar '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
Seems that "Social Sciences" are neither. But that is just the observation from one in the "Hard Sciences"
Mar '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
Oh, Mollie, that is delicious, isn't it.
A succinct demonstration of the fact that many of our contemporary intellectuals elevate radical "equality" above everything--even human flourishing.
Edited on December 7, 2012 at 4:42pmDec '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
It makes my wife happy to know that my needs are met, and she fusses over me to make sure I am eating and that I have a jacket and so forth. If I don't get her pregnant soon I swear to god she is going to start pinning mittens to my jacket.
I find this annoying, and every now and again I have to tell her to back off a bit. I know she worries, and fussing over me makes her happy.
I personally like buying her expensive shoes. I can't send my soldier into the field with substandard gear. It makes me feel like I am an effective provider.
Oct '12
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
It will very interesting to see in the future how the 'reverse socialization' (my term) will change society. Will it be a passing fad or a pendulum that swings back the other way, or will the modern understanding of this being sexist and a sign of male dominance (open doors for females = bad sexist bigot) permanently cement itself into the culture.
If my daughter opens a door for me and I tell her to go in first, she gets extremely angry, as if my courtesy is a horrible offense and as a female she should be treated the same as a male. It is truly disgusting. The only thing worse is when you open a door for a female and she angrily denounces you for showing some courtesy, and it's happened more than once.
Next thing you know, they will replace 'thank you' with 'screw you'.
May '10
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
I just wish he wouldn't call it sexism or gender inequality.
Difference and complementarity don't entail inequality in the relevant sense. Neither does chivalry.
In my book, we oppose sexism not because it distinguishes between the sexes, but because it denigrates women. We don't want a benevolent denigration of women in our culture, any more than we want a benevolent dictatorship in our politics.
We want a culture that respects the equal dignity of both sexes and cherishes the great and beautiful differences between them.
Edited on December 7, 2012 at 5:02pmSep '12
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
The authors should also consider that there may an equilibration outside of the vacuum they place gentlemanly behavior. While men get to feel like gentleman, women get to feel as if they have some special power over men. Since when is social science disinterested in, and even hostile to, women with power?
Mar '12
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
One doesn't encounter "benevolent sexism" in malevolently sexist cultures, such as rural Islamist countries. Women are treated like dirt, are the laborers in the fields while their husbands sip coffee in the little cafes. From the perverse view of Western academe, probably the Islamic sexism is preferable, since it is obvious (if indeed multi-culti sensibilities even allow one to see Islamic men as "sexist").
Western academics, feminists and media are consumed with anger at white males and every aspect of the culture they created. 200 years from now, any surviving real historians will marvel at the suicidal impulses lurking in the Western "Enlightenment."
Jun '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
Ugly concept, but a beautiful observation.
May '10
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
ALL of the best discussions are on the member feed.
May '10
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
Murray, an academic, is so into the bag that he doesn't even recognize the REAL laugher in that paragraph. It isn't what he highlighted. It is this:
"To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair. A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse systemjustification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men."
those two sentences say more about the likelihood of getting any useful knowledge out of the Social "Sciences" that all his gum mashing ever will.
Oct '10
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
When I read that last sentence I wasn't sure if I was paying attention to the excerpt. It almost seems like someone else wrote that last sentence.
I was wondering what they meant by inequality. Are they referring to income or how many women are CEOs, etc.?
I'm still blown away by the response to my post. I wish I had said more explicitly that addressing ideas and images of manhood is important because it has a ripple effect on the rest of society. And that seems to be what you're saying here, Mollie. It doesn't mean that men carry more blame or that they need to change first before we deal with the women or anything like that.
Feb '12
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
My father always said to me when I was young, "You don't live in a democracy. You live in a benevolent dictatorship!" He said it in all good humor, usually while playing with me. Ah, fond memories.
Anyway, "benevolent sexism" implies the conclusion, doesn't it? Sexism of any kind need be stamped out.
I'd like to think this backs up my point I attempted to make on the "On the Developing Manvolution". Good and virtuous conduct expressed uniquely by men is attractive to women and men alike. Gentleman are never out of style.
Speaking anecdotally, I've behaved admirably, which, I'll admit, isn't always the case, and found even avowed opponents of this "benevolent sexism" in my company appreciating my care, unbeknownst to them.
This even works on a crass commercial level.
Jun '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
Benevolent sexism is a problem that just does not need a solution. At least that is what I decided the only time I really felt discomfited by it. I once had a somewhat old-fashioned Italian boss, a true gentleman, who had a by tradition done certain nice touches for the female secretary in the office. He brought her small presents from trips, and when it snowed he brushed off her car for her. When I came in as the only other woman, though I was in a professional capacity, he felt he had to do that for me too. It made me squirm because he did not do that for guys in my position. But I decided it would be ridiculous to complain in this world about somebody being too nice to you, so I accepted it and thanked him, and we were all fine and it did not affect my career one way or the other.
May '10
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
In a relationship between parents and (young) children "benevolent dictatorship" is well and good. Not in relationships among mature adults.
Edited on December 7, 2012 at 6:44pmMay '10
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
Can't agree. I mean, I have no issue with your way of dealing with the concrete case you mentioned.
But I think sexism (in as much as it involves condescension toward or denigration of women, or the reverse toward men), be it ever so benevolent, calls for correction.
Nov '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
katievs: I just wish he wouldn't call it sexism or gender inequality.
Difference and complementarity don't entail inequality in the relevant sense. Neither does chivalry.
In my book, we oppose sexism not because it distinguishes between the sexes, but because it denigrates women. We don't want a benevolent denigration of women in our culture, any more than we want a benevolent dictatorship in our politics.
We want a culture that respects the equal dignity of both sexes and cherishes the great and beautiful differences between them.
Hear, hear.
My problem with sexism is that it degrades human beings. If people draw value from their positive understanding of gender rolls that allow them to value themselves, it can only be a good thing.
When I was younger I used to open doors for women in a chivalrous manner and they used to fight it. So I stopped it for a while and didn't and something was lost.
Then I started doing it again and said to hell with the women who would fight a courtesy based on the foolish notion that it violated some sense of gender equality or degraded them somehow.
Nov '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
katievs
In a relationship between parents and (young) children "benevolent dictatorship" is well and good. Not in relationships among mature adults. · 6 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
That's why some people become libertarians.
Nov '11
Re: Social Science: We Can't Let Men And Women Be Happy
katievs
Can't agree. I mean, I have no issue with your way of dealing with the concrete case you mentioned.
But I think sexism (in as much as it involves condescension toward or denigration of women, or the reverse toward men), be it ever so benevolent, calls for correction. · 6 minutes ago
But what there condescension or denigration in her case?